Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review

The Sony a6300 is the company's latest mid-range mirrorless camera. Like the a6000 it still offers 24MP resolution but the autofocus ability, video capability, build quality, viewfinder resolution and price have all been increased.

The most exciting change from our perspective is the a6300's new sensor. Although the pixel count remains the same, the a6300's sensor has a whopping 425 phase-detection AF points ranged across the sensor. The a6000 already offered one of the best AF systems in its class, when it comes to identifying and tracking subjects, so an upgrade in this area sounds extremely promising. The sensor is also built using newer fabrication processes that use copper wiring to help improve the sensor's performance and possibly contributing to the camera's slightly improved battery life.

The a6000 has been a huge success and has dominated its field to the extent that its combination of capability and price still looks impressive even as it enters the twilight of its career (Sony says it will live on, alongside the a6300*). That model represented a dip down-market for the series, with a drop in build quality and spec relative to the NEX-6 that preceded it. The a6300 corrects that course, and sees the model regain the high resolution viewfinder and magnesium-alloy build offered by the older NEX-6 (and the level gauge, which was absent from the a6000).

Key features:

24MP Exmor CMOS sensor

425 phase detection points to give '4D Focus' Hybrid AF

4K (UHD) video - 25/24p from full width, 30p from smaller crop

2.36M-dot OLED finder with 120 fps mode

Dust and moisture resistant magnesium-alloy body

Built-in Wi-Fi with NFC connection option

Built-in microphone socket

As with the previous 6-series E-mount cameras, the a6300 features a flip up/down 16:9 ratio screen. The shape of this screen hints at the 6300's intended uses: video shooting, as well as stills. The a6300's movie features have been considerably uprated. It not only shoots 4K (UHD) at 24p or 25p from its full sensor width (or 30p from a tighter crop). It also gains a mic socket, the video-focused Picture Profile system (which includes the flat S-Log2 and S-Log3 gamma curves), and the ability to record time code.

This added emphasis on video makes absolute sense, since the camera's stills performance is likely to be competitive with the best on the market but its video capabilities trounce most of its current rivals. The a6300 not only includes focus peaking and zebra stripes but, if its on-sensor phase detection works well, the ability to re-focus as you shoot with minimal risk of focus wobble and hunting, should make it easier to shoot great-looking footage.

All this makes it hard to overstate how promising the a6300 looks. A latest-generation sensor can only mean good things for the camera's image quality and an autofocus system that moves beyond the performance of one of our benchmark cameras is an enticing prospect. Add to that excellent, well-supported video specifications, a better viewfinder and weather-sealed build, and it's tempting to start planning for the camera's coronation as King of the APS-C ILCs. Perhaps with only the price tag floating over proceedings, threatening just a little rain on that particular parade.

Specifications compared:

As well as comparing the a6300 with the a6000 as its predecessor/sister model, we'll also look at what you get if you save up a bit more money and opt for full-frame, rather than APS-C. We think at least some enthusiast users will find themselves making this decision, so are highlighting the differences.

Sony a6000

Sony a6300

Sony a7 II

MSRP (Body Only)

$650

$1000

$1700

Sensor size

APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm)

APS-C (23.5 x 15.6mm)

Full Frame (35.8 x 23.9 mm)

Pixel count

24MP

24MP

24MP

AF system

Hybrid AF (with 179 PDAF points)

Hybrid AF (with 425 PDAF points)

Hybrid AF (with 117 PDAF points)

Continuous shooting rate

11 fps

11 fps

5 fps

Screen

3" tilting 921k dot LCD

3" tilting 921k dot LCD

3" tilting 1.23m dot LCD

Viewfinder

OLED 1.44M-dot

OLED 2.36M-dot w/120 fps refresh option

OLED 2.36M-dot

Movie Resolution

1920 x 1080 / 60p

4K 3840 x 2160 / 30p, 1920 x 1080 / 120p, 60p

1920 x 1080 / 60p

Image stabilization

In-lens only

In-lens only

In-body 5-axis

Number of dials

Two

Two

Three (plus Exp Comp.)

Maximum shutter speed

1/4000 sec

1/4000 sec

1/8000 sec

Built-in flash

Yes

Yes

No

Hot shoe

Yes

Yes

Yes

Flash sync speed

1/160 sec

1/160 sec

1/250 sec

Battery life(with EVF)

360 shots (310 shots)

400 shots(350 shots)

350 shots(270 shots)

Weight (w/battery)

344 g (12.1 oz)

404 g (14.3 oz)

599 g (21.1 oz)

Dimensions

120 x 67 x 45 mm (4.7 x 2.6 x 1.8 in.)

120 x 67 x 49 mm (4.7 x 2.6 x 1.9 in.)

127 x 96 x 60 mm (5 x 3.8 x 2.4 in.)

A hit-for-six, slam-dunk, home-run?

If it's successful in its attempts to step up from the performance of the a6000 then the a6300 could be sensational. However, there are three questions that we'd like to see addressed. The first relates to handling: why does a camera costing this much only have one dial that you can access without changing the position of your grip? The rear dial isn't the worst we've encountered, but at this price point, we'd usually expect to find a dial under the forefinger and another under the thumb while maintaining a shooting grip.

The second relates to lenses. Sony is bundling the a6300 with the 16-50mm power zoom that's far more notable for its convenience than its optical consistency, a move that's likely to raise the question of what other lenses to fit. Sony offers a handful of reasonably priced APS-C-specific prime lenses as well as some more expensive FE-compatible full-frame primes. However, in terms of standard zooms, you're currently limited to the inexpensive 16-50mm, the older 18-55mm at aftermarket prices or considerably more expensive options such as the 18-105mm F4 or the 16-70mm F4 Zeiss that costs around the same amount as the camera again. The success of Sony's full frame a7 cameras is only likely to improve third-party lens availability but there's a risk that Sony's focus will be on those full frame users for the foreseeable future.

Our final concern is the lack of joystick or touchscreen to re-position the AF point. This may be mitigated during stills shooting if the lock-on AF system works well enough (starting AF tracking and then recompose your shot in the knowledge that the AF point will stay where you want it), but it appears to be a real omission for refocusing while shooting video. The a6300 is improved over previous models, in that pressing the center button on the four-way controller toggles into AF point selection mode, a decision that's retained even if you turn the camera off and on again. We'll see how significant all these concerns turn out to be, as the review unfolds.

Price and kit options

The 16-50mm power zoom is far more notable for its convenience than its optical consistency.

The a6300 body has a suggested retail price of $1000/£1000/€1250, with a 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 power zoom kit commanding an MSRP of $1150/£1100/€1400. This is a significant step up from the a6000's $650/$800 launch price and even an increase compared to the similarly well-built NEX-6's $750/$900 MSRP.

Review History

17 March 2016

Intro, Specs, Body and Handling, Operations and Control and Studio Comparison published

*Unusually, the manufacturer's claim that it'll live on, alongside its apparent replacement model seems plausible. The differences in spec and price could allow them to sit fairly comfortably alongside one another, rather than the claim simply meaning 'we'll keep saying it's a current model until most of the unsold stock has gone, to avoid angering retailers.'

Comments

Richard, I am impressed that you come here and respond to criticism levelled at the review. That is big of you, and speaks to your confidence in what you have delivered. I wonder if the camera should have gotten a silver or a Gold based on factors others have mentioned specifically lack of direct access to functions without having to menu dive, lens ecosystem, etc. That said, this camera is clearly an upgrade, and clearly the best in its class and for those complaining about the price (I'm not thrilled about it either), just look at whats being charged for the Olympus Pen F and X-Pro 2 both of which are inferior to the a6300.

Some of the criticism will highlight anything I've explained poorly or things I've overlooked, so it's worth me reading it even when I disagree with it. No matter how much I think we've reached the right answer, I will try to correct things I've got wrong. It took several years for me to get used to it, though.

What I'd love to be able to do is find a way to capture the discussions we have when making the final decision about whether to award silver or gold - a lot of them are knife-edge decisions that end up being swayed by a powerful argument by someone within the team. I think if we could find a way of giving some insight into the process, people would have a clearer understanding of how seriously we take it.

@Richard: your description of the decision making process of gold versus silver awards suggests to me that handing out these awards is just the wrong thing to do. In my humble opinion it would be much better to drop the awards and the "final score", and just present the category scores together with your final conclusions and "good for, not good for" summaries. DPR stands apart from the crowd because of their highly detailed reviews, which is something you deservedly pride yourselves on, so why then spoil this by going down the populistic route of over-simplification at the end? DxO makes the same error, btw, trying to represent complex products by one single number...

But consider this. No score, rating, award, or number of stars will ever be perceived of as "correct" by everyone. Someone will always disagree, because we are all different in our wants, needs, and preferences.

Dpreview, like everyone else, tries very hard to weigh and balance a products different attributes then give it a rating of some sort. But how much value does "better video" have for someone who never shoots video?

One category that is completely overlooked is "style." You cannot convince me that this is an important factor in desirability, but since it is highly subjective and impossible to measure and score, it is omitted.

It might be better if there were no scores applied, but then we gearheads would have nothing to quarrel about. And all that bickering is what results in 100 million forum posts that help generate site traffic and ad revenue....

You can turn High ISO NR to Normal, Low, and Off. Normal is default. But you don't buy a camera like this to shoot JPG. You won't come near the potential of the sensor like that. If you're shooting JPG and don't need super fast/accurate AF, high build quality, or 4K, an A6000 is a better choice.

Battery Solution: I would like to call everyones attention to this video by David Oaster in Australia. And he has some really good videos that are of interest to all Sony users. Copy and past this into your address line.

I believe that the A6300 is like the A7RII in that you can operate the camera by running through USB power (battery needs to have some charge though). This way you can leave the battery in the camera and use a USB wall wart or *any* 5V 1A battery that has a few thousand mAh to run your A6300.

Tony's right. I use a 21,000+mah power pack that is equal to about 20 batteries. I use this for long studio shoots (when tripod mounted) and for shooting video. Especially video as that can use up a lot of power. It's worth buying a couple of them (£25 each) as they do take a while to recharge.

It's not something I'd need to travel with, it's just more convenient in the studio or for long stints of shooting video from a tripod. I carry 7 batteries for the 2 cameras when I travel. This allows for two days use with three spare so I have more than enough to cover during recharging.

Once you've used mirrorless you get into a habit of being more careful with your battery usage and now, it's not something I give a second thought to. I can easily go out for a full day in the mountains, one fresh battery in each camera and carry 2 spares. I rarely have to use the spares and shoot approx 300 images plus 20-30 footage clips on top. It would be nice to have a more powerful battery but it's low down on my "Wish list" in terms of how they may improve the A7rii in the future.

If you look side by side the page 9 , "Image quality" with the studio scene, and put A6300 and A7 side by side, you'll see that photos are indinstiguishable between the 2 cameras, from 100 ISO and 6400 ISO at least, and any part of the chart. RAW and jpeg.

Someone here tested his A6300 against his A7 II. No distinguishable difference in noise. DPReview's comparison tool even shows the A6300 inching ahead. DR also holds its own against the D810, with the D810 getting chunky in max recovery, and the A6300 going magenta. In the end, both have usable shadows in the same range.

KhairilDon't forget Sony A7 is end 2013, A6300 is 2.5 years older, but yes, it seems 2016 APS-C sensor in 2016 score the same in IQ as FF in 2013. From DPR Scene comparison tool (I dont have A6300 to check with my A7).

Not the same lenses, and not the same crop, and not the same DOF as FF of course.

More like that the long list of negatives is insignificant compared to its combination of positives in image quality, video and autofocus. I think dpreview puts image quality/features first before the shooting experience.

Would the lack of included external charger put you off buying probably the most capable video camera available for the money?

If not, then it doesn't make sense to simply count the pros and subtract the cons. Some of the cons are pretty minor. Some won't affect every user. Some can be circumvented by dipping a bit deeper into your pocket.

For me, none of them was sufficient to make me overlook this camera's excellent image quality, highly capable AF system and really impressive video.

What on earth makes you think, I’m going by the DPR ratings? I can have my own opinion based on my experience and raws.

The Fuji is a significantly better stills camera, as long as you don’t need the bestest AF. I say this having tried both. The lossy raws are a detraction from the A6300, so is the body’s build quality.

They have the same sensor, but unfortunately, the X-Pro2 has the X-Trans CFA that blurs detail. Lossy compression only really affects dynamic range. The noise increase is maybe 1/3 to 1/2 stop, where this sensor is still performing better than its predecessor. A fair price to pay to get more detail than Fuji, with or without compression.

Hi Richard,Would like to here from you about ISO differences between 80d,d7200 and a6300. Is it safe assume that a6300 is better than 70d by one full stop. This looks like very nice camera and smaller size is a big bonus as well.

"HAR I'll be looking forward to your own DPR one day, maybe then your opinion will mean more than a comment here" -- Why are you carrying on this conversation if apparently you do not consider anyone's opinion unless they work for DPR? Just to be argumentative?

In the dynamic range image at +3 and higher, there is a disturbing rainbow like artifact appearing along the left side of the red handled brush in the shadow next to the white highlight on paint plate, right bottom of studio comparison in the a6300 samples. Just scroll along the brush handle and you will see it. Completely clean with the d7200 at all push levels.

I don't understand why they didn't compare it to X-pro 2 more rather than keep going on about D7200 and Canon 80D. They are DSLRs. More comparison should have been made with the other mirrorless apsc cameras especially the current leader X-PRO2

The X-Pro2 has a list price of $1699 and aims (pretty successfully) at a very specific niche.

Particularly when it comes to autofocus, comparing this only to other mirrorless cameras would be crazy. This is trying to be a mid-market do-everything machine, so I compared it primarily with those.

We're getting to the point where some mirrorless cameras can do the things that used to be thought of as the preserve of DSLRs (C-AF being the main one), and some DSLRs are trying to match capabilities we've traditionally associated with mirrorless (the EOS 80D's touchscreen video controls).

Since it seems reasonable that many customers might be trying to choose between some mirrorless models and some DSLRs, we consider ILCs to be a single category.

Just surprised why you didnt compare IQ with it thats all. It is a mirrorless APSC camera after all, the Sony isnt cheap either so I would class it same bracket as X-PRO2. Also, it has more in common with it than both the Nikon D7200 and Canon 80D.

One day, DPReview will drop the silly practice of giving out awards. As to the final score, it will be calculated based on the user-specific relevance factors corresponding to the category evaluation values (e.g. Build Quality) assigned by the reviewers: sum( rf[i] * ev[i] ). So, instead of a single 85% score, the score could be 70% for me, 94% for her, 63% for him, etc. As they stand right now, the gold award and the 85% score imply that the a6300 is a "great" camera for "any user," which is far from reality.

Ummm that is why there are USER reviews too and why they give you those nice GREEN bars for what a camera is good at vs not as good at. I think most people can figure it out. I can tell you as an ACTUAL owner it is tied with the A77M2 as the best camera I have ever owned. Where the A6000 was a great small camera with several compromises.

as with any publication, readers want to know the editor's opinion. Why ask Preview to stop giving their opinion? All the details are there, so just take what you want and don't deprive others of what they want...

Could you clarify something for me? When you say "Drops to 12-bit mode in various modes inc. continuous shooting", does that mean *all* shooting in AF-C mode is 12-bit? Or does that just mean when you're shooting a burst of images it drops to 12-bit?

Sony could help themselves a lot if they were to just create a very good 16-50mm lens for APSC. It doesn't need to be a powerzoom or a pancake, just a very good lens. Perhaps an f/2.8-4.0. Much like the normal 18-55mm kit zoom lens Fuji makes for their X series cameras.

Sony already has a very good 35mm f/1.8 and a 50mm f/1.8 lenses for APSC. The piece that is missing is a good normal zoom lens that doesn't weigh a ton because it was made for the FE full frame cameras.

There is no real point in making outstanding APSC cameras without some pretty good lenses designed for the crop sensor.

I regret my NX 20-50/3.5, small, sharp, no frills... I could live w/o SS/OIS, please no more PZ (a pain , and prone to failure), just make it sharp and small, for a decent price. I tested plenty of PZ1650 from Sony, none is half decent vs. the cheaper Samsung NX.

Sony could easily raise the price to $1,049 and include an OEM charger and two OEM spares with the camera. This would also give them a competitive advantage over other models that don't include chargers or spare batteries.

Kit lens is better than people like to talk about.. and its pretty convenient. I would love an alternative when compactness was not an issue but it has some nice areas like LOW CA compare to some other kits

Please FOCUS! This is the most featured and advanced camera in the market you can actually DROP IN YOUR POCKET and go places without a backpack! For sure the kit lens has a few shortcomings that are all software correctable; for sure this camera needs a better compact travel lens, but with my adapter and my A-mount lenses this little body gives me the flexibility, ease and mobility that I always looked for.

I've done dozens of tests as in http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3966653 with multiple copies of pz1650 and sel1855: The OP is right on with the Worst Kit Lens Award. Great sensors, small cameras, innovation ahead of arguably everybody else. Kudos Sony!

Here's to hoping the Fuji X-T2 has all this and maintains the X-T1's effortless "access all the camera's capabilities."

Fuji already wins on lens ecosystem. I hope for a 4k surprise from Fuji so that it garners the Gold Award the X-pro2 failed to earn and provides still image capture from 4k footage with film simulations . I'm buying it over this Sony and the xpro2 regardless.

Exactly what I did years back. I bought an external charger and spare battery, so I can charge two batteries at once (one in-camera and one in the external charger. But I agree, Sony should've included an external charger.

Actually USB charging is a great Idea but they should include a charger as well. One of my cameras, an RX100, has USB charging. I bought a charger and 2 extra batteries because I thought I wouldn't like USB charging. I've had the camera 3 1/2 years and never use the charger any more because USB is just so convenient.

Thing is. You can charge while you use it. Try that with an external charger. So any power pack will give you all the video time you need. Or shooting. If I had to chose between external and USB. I'd take USB any day of the week if it allowed me to use while charging.

Do you own any smartphone or Tablet that already uses USB charging? If so, you would appreciate that they can now be all charged with the same cable, which helps a lot packing for traveling. It seems stupid in this day and time that each piece of electronic equipment comes with different size and shape cable and charger, which does pretty much the same thing.

USB charging is one of most practical feature on my A7R II, Sony battery is so pathetic and when shooting time-lapse and star trail, I would have to keep on swapping batteries in the middle of the session, now with the external USB battery pack, I can keep that that thing running all day all night. How much is a stand alone charger going to cost for those need one??

I love USB charging. I wish all cameras had it. I still have a separate charger, which can be bought for cheap, and often come with the purchase of additional third-party batteries anyways. But I find USB charging to be so handy. At the very least, it gives you two chargers (one external, one internal) to simultaneously charge two batteries.

I actually bought this camera over the a6000 partly because of the USB charging. I don't like needing a extra charger for my Canon when nearly every electronic device I own runs on usb power. I also always have a power bank on me for my phone so I can now either use that to actively power the camera or charge its battery while its in my bag. This is incredibly useful when you are on the go.

The review didn't really mention it but active power via usb is also huge. Since I can still use the camera while its on my power bank this means I can use my 20,000 mHa power bank to take Time Lapse photos over long periods without any issues. Also usb power when doing video in the field so you are not draining the battery. Yes they did not include a charger but the camera its self is the charger. Canon has to include one because you can't do this. Sony has the luxury of skipping it. if you end up buying multiple batteries then you will also end up buying the $5-10 charger.

it is a mixed bag. Have to do more tests with native lenses and side by side with my A7II too.. And the Viltrox II is not the state of art adapter compared to the Metabones. Due to the complexity of the latter, perhaps an update is incoming ?

Having USB charging is actually a plus because you can use a big battery pack input as an option.

If you don't want to use USB charging I'd recommend a dual battery charger. I bought a Vivitar branded dual charger that charges over USB for my A7R2. It is a hassle to charge batteries singly when the A7R2 has such miserable battery life.

The A6300 uses the same battery as the A7R2, most Sony cameras use the same battery. Although capacity isn't the highest, I like a standardized battery.

DPR "The dial on the rear face of the camera is much less impressive. It's one of the better examples of its type and can be moved the number of steps you require with only a slightly raised risk of over-turning or accidental rotation. However, it still requires you to reposition your right hand away from the shooting grip in order to make a change - something that shouldn't be necessary on a camera costing this much."

No it doesn't because it can be reached with your thumb without moving your hand. I don't own this camera but I do own an A77ii which is bigger and I can reach the joystick with my thumb with no problem. Overall the ergonomics are inferior to my A77ii however.

This Gold award should bring out the Sony haters/Trolls in full force.

@tbcass. I agree. I almost always use the EVF on the a6000 and I have no problem using the rotary dial. However when using the LCD I found I used a different grip—because I held the camera with one hand only. That did make the rotary dial less accessible.

Ditto I never need to move my hand position.. thumb works great. Also while they give ding for the menusIf you are an EVF shooter and put the LCD in EVF mode (where it is just filled with settings you get the function bar in the EVF and all the core settings easy change able on the LCD and I think there may be an assumption that you have to click the button before changing the settings. You don't when the setting is highlighted moving the dial changes the setting right away.. is very slick but people are used to pushing buttons to move down layers in a system

If my hand is holding the camera and my thumb is resting on the thumb rest at the top right-hand corner, I can reach up to the dial at the top corner of the camera but I can't stretch down to the back dial without lifting my palm away from the back of the camera.

Because of the compactness of the camera, I think not having a front dial is a good thing. I'd only have one finger (ring finger) holding the front if I used my middle finger for a front dial and index finger for the shutter. It would be pretty unstable like that, and I'd want to use my other hand for support any time I rotated that dial.

Why do reviewers always freak out about using lenses that cost more than the camera body? If you're going to be shooting with a 24 megapixel sensor you want to use a lens that gets the most out of it and good zoom lenses just aren't cheap. In my experience it makes more sense to scrimp on the camera body and use the bulk of your budget for a really nice lens or two.

@ tbcass - I have seen the difference and to me (and many others) 12 vs 14 bit is significant, especially when people are stretching files further and further these days in the wonderful world of high DR or trying to recover a botched image. Even entry level DSLRs can do it, there is no reason The A6300 shouldn't at least have it as an option.

@ ttran88 - there is no doubt in my mind, and each with Gold awards :)

@ DualSystemGuy If that level of IQ is that important I doubt anybody would be shooting high speed bursts anyway. You should be shooting 1 shot at a time and being careful with exposure, composition etc. When shooting one shot at a time (or 3fps) you get the full 14 bit files you desire.

@photomedium - I wrote all bar one page of this review and didn't get flown anywhere.

@Stu 5 - There are some cons that will be serious for some people but very few that would be serious for everyone. The excellent image quality, AF and video capability are potentially useful to everyone though.

The review was quick because there haven't been many other events (such as product launches) that have also been calling on my time. All decisions about which products we review and in what order are many solely by the dpreview editorial team, with no input at all from anybody outside that team.

We face accusations of favouritism whether we're fast or slow with reviews. Sometimes you just can't win.

You can't win because the 6 month old Nikon d810 has not been reviewed but the two week old and not even released Sonys have been reviewed, previewed, updated, video sample, etc, etc. So to anybody looking at the site it looks like DP favors Sony since Nikon has no review but Sonys are reviewed and praised and each get 3 or 4 articles the day before they are released. So it appears Amazon or Sony is requiring you to review them and gold star them before people look to buy them on Amazon. It may not be true at all but look at it from your readers eyes, why has the Nikon not been rated but all these Sonys have from day one?

To you people saying DPR favors Sony, It took over a year for the A77ii to get reviewed. It's not Sony but E Mount gets reviewed because they're innovative. Cameras like the D810 are just slightly improved versions of the previous one so a review wouldn't have much to say. What does the D810 offer that the D800 didn't?

Beat me to it, the NX1 had people very excited by that particular quality. I'm glad to see the same thing here.

It's a real shame they pulled the plug, they had a class leader on their hands with the NX1. Like many things, the company gave up on the verge of brilliance. I guess the sales figures just weren't what they needed to be.

Still though, what a way to go out. And you can hack the NX1 bitrate now too!

I do not understand the tendency to reduce the size of cameras: even now, the dimensions of some of them make it difficult for use. And what kind of benefit is there after installation of professional lens 24-70 mm or larger?

@ Orcio14 I agree and don't like these smaller bodies but at the same time there are a huge number of users who prefer the smaller size. We're all different and it's wrong to judge other's preferences based on our own.

Aren't we saying, segmentation? There are people who love red or orange coloured cameras. As long as there is an opportunity, there will be a business to do...If I were to hold a camera for hours, I certainly will want a body that fits the hands.

The sony alpha series feels much more comfortable in my hands than canon or nikon dslrs, even when a standard zoom is mounted. And why complain? There are tons of larger options there. It would be a much worse market if all cameras are of the same size.

It's clear that the Nikon D7200 has a slight edge in higher iso performance 6400 for example as well as some higher settings, but odd that you give a slight edge to the a6300 in your comparison. Look at the color chart and grey around the brushes. That being said, they are very close though.

Hi Richard Thanks for the report. Very helpful. Could you please explain a bit more about AF performance while using Canon lens? If both set to 3 fps, how does the AFC performance compare between using a native sony lens and a canon lens? Can you think about a camera of which the AFC performance is similar to a6300 paired with a canon lens? Sorry, but at the moment seems that adapted lens is the only option for me if I were going to invest on this camera.

The native lens will allow you to use all the camera's AF modes, such as the 'Lock-On' tracking modes and Eye-AF, which means it'll be a lot more flexible than using the adapted lens.

The AF-C with the Canon 70-200 was pretty good, with everything in focus until the subject got very close to the camera, but knowing that a native lens would allow me to shoot at 8 or 11 fps with greater flexibility means I'd only use adapted lenses as a stopgap, personally.

We all know dpreview loves Sony, so of course this got the gold award. As a standalone camera body, it most likely deserves it though, but I never understood how the surrounding ecosystem, the lenses and other accessories, can be overlooked when reviewing a camera. After all, it matters a lot for all practical purposes, and Sony's neglect of their APS-C ecosystem is in my opinion appalling. Sony are clearly focusing on "full frame" lenses, but I refuse to be part of an "upgrade path", paying for huge, expensive lenses made for a larger sensor. It seems like Sony are looking to Canon and Nikon who have had success with people buying their APS-C cameras as an "upgrade path" with "full frame" lenses, but I never liked the way Canon and Nikon treated their APS-C customers as second rate, and I don't like it when Sony copies that strategy.

The requirements of the individual user determines if the surrounding ecosystem is satisfactory. Therefore, it would be a bit strange to let that have any impact on the recommendation of a camera body. This is a camera review, not a system review. As a prospective buyer, you need to decide for yourself, if the system as a whole fulfills your requirements.

The review explicitly mentions lens availability on the first page and in the conclusion. And ends with the sentence 'If the lenses you want are available...' I don't see how that's counts as 'overlooking' it.

Given I've written an article expressly questioning the idea that being forced into buying full frame lenses is a cynical way to make people feel they have already started on their way to full frame ownership, I too would be disappointed if Sony goes down that route.

DPReview reviews cameras, not brands. We don't 'love Sony' - it just so happens that their last few cameras have been really impressive. We've also been consistent in our criticism of their UI and UX, to the point where we spent a long time discussing whether to give the a6300 a Gold or Silver.

I think the overall score is about right, I figured 82-84 or so. I do disagree with the jpeg score though, way too high. The jpegs have poor skin tones and white balance and colors seem off for anything but perfect outdoor lighting, the skin tones are no more pleasing than on the Q which was harshly commented on. It's a great sensor and converts well from raw but jpeg are not very pleasing. Also the camera handling should drop to a near failing score, the menus are terrible even worse than Olympus. And at least Olympus has good exterior controls. Build quality score seems a bit high for a non weather sealed camera but weather resistant which Sony doesn't state how weather resistant it is, no touch screen, not best in class screen resolution. Same as the others it has no touch screen but even worse than the xpro 2 since it has no easy way to select autofocus points, just a mushy pad that's used for other things. Video in 4K is impressive but the commonly used 1080 is less than stellar, also rolling shutter. It's a very nice camera and definitely deserves a score over 80 just not sure how far over 80. DP is definitely harsher on other camera brands downfalls than they are on Sonys downfalls.

The JPEG score for color and white balance were a little lower than its competitors but the clever sharpening and noise reduction helped compensate for that.

Most of those other criticisms were addressed in the scoring.

However I do not believe that we are harsher or more lenient on a brand basis. We're all aware of the degree to which these perceptions are held by some of our readers so try particularly hard to make sure our decisions aren't coloured by anything beyond the specific camera itself.

I agree the xpro 2 and a6300 raw should be the same score and the Fuji definitely has better out of camera jpegs. The Sony jpeg colors are not very flattering or natural. I'd much rather use a Fuji or Olympus jpeg. It's funny how no one ever argues how nice Sony jpegs are and no other review states the jpegs are great except DP, in fact many other review state it has a bad white balance and poor skin tones, so not sure how anyone can state DP doesn't over rate Sony.

The differences in JPEG and Raw scoring between the two cameras are incredibly subtle.

The X-Pro2 scores higher for colour, the Sony scores a bit higher for its sophisticated sharpening, noise reduction and how effective the DRO mode is.

Arguably the scoring algorithm should give a bit more weight to the importance of colour rendition, since I agree that the Fujifilm JPEGs are 'better' if you have to reduce all the considerations down to a single factor. This isn't something I can just change, I'm afraid and it may forever have to be a level of subtlety better revealed in the review and conclusion text than in a since aspect of the scoring.

Strange point system than, as a pro you probably shoot jpeg and raw. If you need to quickly show a customer a photo or email it without being able to edit. Can you send the Sony shot or would you rather send a Fuji shot? In todays age were everything gets immediately posted online which one provides a more pleasing image to post, I thought the point of jpeg was out of camera ready?

Richard, I just feel you guys don't penalise Sony enough for the lens system. If anything it should be the very first big con, not the lack of a touchscreen, and in my eyes is enough to detract it from a top award. After all what is a system camera without a system?

I have to agree with yslee1. A camera body by itself is useless and should not be weighed so heavily that it minimizes the importance of the lenses. For fixed lens cameras, DPREVIEW's system may be alright, but not for bodies. The lenses available to that body should weigh much more heavily.

I realize it gets complicated, but this review just points out why it should be addressed more adequately.

Well the only things that rate better on the much more expensive X-Pro2 are build quality and ergonomics/menus, on RAW and JPEG image quality (the most important categories) the Sony is also slightly better than the Fuji while in all the other categories the Sony kills the X-Pro2 to death! A little annoying that, as I'm a Fuji fan and user...their APS-C glass is still better than Sony's APS-C glass though...a little consolation there I suppose.

I think ergonomics and handling are very important too - especially if you work as a professional .. Also I disagree that it is better in lowlight - at least when I compare the test-images at ISO 3200+ - I really like DP-Review, but sometimems I wonder how they evaluate the results... :D Anyway, both nice cameras, - but I don't like Sonys too much for myself ... Glass is way better on the Fujis ;) Maybe thats something Sony should focus on :D

The ergonomics and JPEG colour of the Fujifilm would be enough to keep it in the running for me, personally (in spite of the AF and video benefits of the Sony). The X-Pro2 does look pricey by comparison, though.

"but the dynamic range and noise performance of the sensor are as good as things get in an APS-C camera."

My experience has been that the Fuji XPro2, which very likely uses a variation of the same sensor, is better. But then the Fuji doesn't do lossy raws.

Tried this Sony A6300 with the 55mm f/1.8 SonyZeiss, and under the same lighting the f/2.0 35mm Fuji on the XPro2 does a better job with color. That's an excellent SonyZeiss lens, so I have to think it's the compression.

Nice camera the A6300, wish the card slot was not in the battery compartment.

Why wold you assume its the same sensor? MP count? Look at the AF point count.. also Sony uses copper "wiring" this allows for smaller circuit paths so the light gather areas is larger. Not sure they have ever done that.. before

Try quoting what I wrote instead of making up things, here you go: “which very likely uses a variation of the same sensor”.

Sony supplies sensors for Fuji, though Fuji designs its own colour filter. The Fuji XPro2 and the A6300 both have very similar higher ISO performance, though the Fuji looks a bit better–probably because of better heat dispersion over the whole sensor surface.

Not sure if anyone's confirmed it yet, but it's well assumed that they're the same base sensor, running different AF and processing software with different CFAs. The previous Fuji 16MP sensors were also Sony's. Possibly the same one as used in the NEX series and beyond. Sony's downfall is the lossy compression/11+7-bit modes, while Fuji's is the X-Trans filter. So you can go for a bit more detail or a bit less chroma noise.

I have a question about lenses for this camera. Since I basically use only 35mm lenses for the type of shots I take, which would be better: the Zeiss T* FE 35mm f/2.8 which is a full frame lens or the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS Alpha E-mount Prime Lens which is an APS-C lens? Even though the Zeiss is a FF lens, would I still get 35mm or would it be cropped to 50mm thus losing the wider angle. If I use the Sony 1.8, would I get the 35mm angle? I'm trying for the best quality but I really need the wide angle. Thanks.

You have to apply the crop factor to both lenses. These have a focal length similar to a 50mm on full frame.

If you want 35mm equivalent, there's only one choice, the 24mm Sony Zeiss. There are cheaper alternatives, but not at 35mm equivalent. I would suggest looking at the Sigma 19mm, which is 28mm equivalent.

If you want 50mm equivalent, pick the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS. It's as good as the Sony Zeiss on APS-C, has a faster aperture and optical stabilisation. It's a no brainer really.

The lense you need is the sony 24mm F1.8.. as its got a zeiss sticker on it, its expensive... in the UK when i was looking last year it was £800 GBP its a good lens..However the Canon bargain basement 24mm STM is the same sharpness etc (DXO) and is ..well bargain basement price...i find most sony lenses can have a similar story or some are just sub par (G Masters look to be top notch)

Looks like the camera was trying to focus on the handlebars. Face Detection probably wasn't on. But yeah, a few look well in focus, most are a touch soft (but usable), and few are noticeably off. There's also a good amount of NR going on, since the camera defaults to the highest NR level from the factory.

I think the DPR "daylight simulation" effect in the tool is causing weird color issues. Example: Look at the yellow colors on the ink tubes... the color/saturation/WB is off... but it only affects certain colors?

I tried to address this in the conclusion. Having reviewed both, I'd draw the opposite conclusion.

The a6300 competes effectively with its similarly-priced peers (suggesting it is a good camera for the price), and offers enough improvements and upgrades that I'd be disappointed to have to go back to an a6000.

I have owned both and I even got the A6000 after the price was down a year later. Its worth the price they may look the same but its a whole new beast when it comes to low light ability, plus video features and better build etc.

Sony is really doing a great job refining their products and pushing the boundaries of the industry, if only they cared to release a decent line of APS specific lenses and made a couple of ergonomic adjustments I would consider them.

Nice review Richard. Once you are done with 80d review, please summarise high iso iq between a6300, 80d and d7200. Is a6300 high iso has 1 stop advantage. Is 1080p vidoe still better than 80d and d7200 even with line skipping implementation.

Some of this is about what you know.. I have used Canon and hated its menus because I didn't know them. Once you set what you want on the buttons you use and se up the FN menu its easy. Then add that when you move the LCD to "viewfinder mode" where it shows all the settings on the LCD.. The FN button gives you quick access to all those settings too. Actually very easy to use.

@Roshni I don't know whether you have operated a Sony A6300 or an FF model, but once set up properly, changing settings is very fast. Of course, a touch LCD would speed up selecting an AF point, but on such a tiny screen I doubt its usefullness.

As a primarily Sony a7R II shooter these days, I still couldn't set up the a6300 to access what I need to access quickly, b/c of a lack of buttons/dials, and b/c of the 'Focus Settings' option missing as an assignable function. Sounds trivial, but because the 'Focus Settings' option is not assignable, I have to assign to 3 buttons to what I assign to 1 button the a7R II:

Custom button for focus magnifier (so I can magnify focus in video, becomes a useless button in stills).

Custom button for AF area

Custom center back button must remain as 'standard' for AF point selection, & becomes a useless button in video.

Furthermore, the button assigned to focus magnifier doesn't actually even magnify the view: you press it to activate focus magnification mode, then press the center back button (which is otherwise useless in video) to actually magnify. Why not just have the center button do it all, as it does on a7R II when assigned to Focus Settings?

K E Hoffman - Our comments don't come from a lack of familiarity. The a6300 requires use of the Fn menu more than most of its peers (though, in fairness, this is partly a consequence of how much it tries to do).

However, the camera lacks the 'Focus Settings' option for the centre button - something that the a7R II includes. This makes the operation of the camera seem fiddly not just in comparison with other brands but also compared with other cameras in Sony's lineup.

It's not so bad that it prevented us giving the camera a Gold award but it's significant enough that we couldn't just gloss over it and pretend everything is fine.

I don't agree with DPR recommended "Focus Settings" being the center button. Using "Standard" does most what you want and then put "Focus Settings" on the down key. DPR keeps trying to get Sony cameras to act like their DSLR and spot focus. Use Wide Area focus for most everything. Set the center button to "Standard", focus settings to "Down" button and you can recover if the camera isn't focusing on your intended subject by hitting the center button. This is what Gary Friedman has been recommending since the A7 release.

Aside from the fact that you can't assign 'Focus Settings' at all to anything on the a6300, your proposed method offers no advantages, & the disadvantage of wasting yet another custom button.

On an a7R II, what advantage does keeping the center back button assigned to 'Standard' give you over assigning it to 'Focus Settings'? I can't see a single advantage over assigning 'Focus Settings' instead - which still allows you to move the AF point using the 4-way dial after your press it, or change the AF area mode by turning the dial after you press it.

It furthermore magnifies the focus point in MF, unlike 'Standard' which either (1) does nothing in MF, or (2) moves the AF point in MF. Read that again: moves the AF point in MF.

Furthermore, assigning 'down' to Focus Settings leads to the awkward experience of, in MF, pressing 'down' only to activate focus magnification, then the center button to actually magnify. Wouldn't you rather just press the same button twice to magnify?

to PVCDroid & Seeky: Cameras are not really very complex. unless you are using a flash. There are only a very small number of things that you can change that alter what happens inside the camera when you take a photograph.I shoot in full manual control mode on my Canon M2 (first canon, first non D/SLR (Pentax K2 film camera fan)). I never need to go near a menu except to connect to wifi.Sony have really failed to make the a6300 a truely meaningful camera - too much tech and not enough heart. It's why I did not buy the a6000 before it.

For the A7Rii, Using Standard as the Center button is a safety net when using AF-C and Wide Area focusing. If you don't like where the camera is focusing, hitting the center button will immediately change to AF-S/center and focus at the same time. You can focus and recompose on the fly doing this vs. 'focus settings' where you are going to have a delay in deciding which setting to choose and then get to the focus point you're interested in using.

Standard lets you execute focus immediately if AF-C/Wide/Face Detection isn't working for you. Focus settings is a planning effort where you aren't getting any shots until you have selected where you want to focus.

Fatdeeman: What gives the M2 heart? Well I really wish DPReview had reviewed it and then Richard Butler could tell you.I've never liked any other Canon camera - I'm a Fuji and Pentax fan - big heavy dials. The M2 is mirrorless pared down to virtually nothing and yet the touch screen interface when shooting just works the way the brain thinks it should. The feedback and response of the screen are almost comically fun (very unlike the compacts from which the UI is derived). Excepting the 22mm lens, yes, the Sony eats it in almost all performance based measures. However, touch focus is so absurdly useful, touch a shooting setting on screen and use the dial or the screen to adjust is just so much more skeuological than the "a" way.Fast moving subjects? NP! Grab an SLR (or the Sony) instead haha...

@Roshni, sounds very much like why I enjoy using my NEX-5n, it mystifies me that they keep leaving touchscreens out of the more advanced models. For some purposes a touchscreen is unnecessary but being able to instantly focus on any object just by touching it is an excellent feature and a very obvious omission on camera like the A6300 with so many focus points. It was the same with the A6000, NEX-6 and NEX-7.

It's also excellent for instant magnification wherever you want when focusing legacy lenses.

"I much prefer tilting LCD's to fully articulating ones. (...) tilting LCD's are far more unobtrusive as they don't flip out to the side, doubling the camera width".Richard Butler, Dan Bracaglia: you are wrong.The Sony A99 and A77 show that a fully articulating LCD can flip vertically instead to the side, allowing much more options: inspection from front, back, (almost) top, and from the sides.

Plus tilt screens are only usable for landscape shots. When you want to shoot a portrait photo the titling screen is not usable anymore and thus very limiting. Fully articulating screen is more useful.

I almost never use the tilt screen on my X-T1 because of this limitation.

I think tilting and articulating are both unnecessary weaknesses. drive the camera off your phone/tablet if accessing the screen isn't optimal makes more sense. Ok, it depends what sort of photography one does so isn't it good we have options?

Hi!!! For me is more... "I only care about video". Why I buy a mirrorless camera instead of a camcorder? Because the IQ is so much better, the low light performance is better due to their bigger sensor.... so let's do cameras optimized for video, and let's burry camcorders. Let's add mic input to all mirrorless cameras, and 180 tiltable screens, and high speed video capability (500fps 1080p, etc)...

Even new and expensive camcorders have small sensors. They make me laugh because they look like big animals with tiny brains... LET'S just MERGE VIDEO & STILLS... forever :)

Looks like Sony is getting this product together. I have had the A6000 about one year now and I use it less and less. I should have waited for this version or maybe the next one and the Sigma f/1.8 zooms. The sensor seems better than any other APS on the market –at least if the comparison test here has any value.The autofocus seems to be better than anybody else's as well...what still is lacking is the in-body stabilizer but a thousand dollars is about as much money you can ask for this camera, no matter how good. Except if you put a red dot on it, maybe?You really made an effort doing this review. Kudos!

How can it be a clash between a refresh rate of 120 per second and a capture rate at 8 frames per second? No, instead of a total blackout you see an annoying darkening, which should be a tiresome to endure during intense shooting like a soccer game where you sit and shot series for long periods.

It doesn't look like we've shot that for our Video Still test scene (which only really tells you about detail, sharpening and readout method), so I can't be sure, but the fast readout of the RX100 IV and its considerably better 1080 at lower frame rates suggest it might be.

At least Sony is moving in the correct direction! I am pleased they optimized video for 4k. It's not that Sony got 1080 wrong -- they made a decision to get 4k right and include 1080. I would down sample 4k to 1080 in post and have your computer do this processing for you. If your workflow requires 1080 clips out of the gate, then the a6300 might not be the best decision.

Is it good to buy A6300 body only and good lens to be purchased separately ??? Because the kit lens 16-50 have not very good review on all the sights. If lens are purchased separately, then please suggest a good zoom lens and a prime lens for this camera.

The lens are the tricky part, only apsc normal range zoom that is E mount and decent is the Sony zeiss 16-70 f4 at the same price as the camera. Primes there are a few depending on quality you are looking for anything from the basic sigmas that are cheap but ok for their price up to very good zeiss ones that again cost around the same or more than the body. I personally like the Sony zeiss 24 f1.8, zeiss 32 f1.8 and the zeiss 50 f2.8. But each lens is around a grand and is not as fast as an apeture as its competitors in other formats which cost less. That's why many people resort to adapters since you can get good lenses and faster lenses for less.

Not all reviews are negative. DxOMark, for example, says: "One of the best all-round performers is the collapsible E-mount 16-50mm f3.5-5.6, which is often bundled as a kit lens. It’s sharper at the shorter end of the zoom range (like most models), and it requires stopping down a stop, but it’s very compact and lightweight."

Meanwhile on Amazon you will find it gets mostly positive reviews from users.

I find it indispensable as a walk-around lens when trekking in the wilderness. It is very light, when retracted the a6000 fits in my jacket pocket and it is very fast at finding focus.

Bundled with the camera it is very cheap.If you are after the ultimate lens this is NOT it, but it is a very useful and serviceable lens. When I need a sharp lens I switch to my Sigma 30mm a good cheap prime lens but the 16-50mm is my default lens.

The kit 16-50 is so cheap to buy when get it as a kit (maybe + $100) then why not get it? It's actually usable over 25mm and around f5.6.Then I highly recommend the FE28-70 kit lens, which has an enviable history of good quality. (No sample variance problems reported.) It scores highly on DxO. This is now my main lens on the NEX-7 and I paid only $250 for it.

Much of the kit lens bad reputation comes from the PhotoZone review that really panned it.Most other reviews say it is fine (for a kit lens).I had one and it was about the same as most that I have had but more useful with a slightly wider short end .......not the best kit lens and not the worst but very small and light and a bit different in how it works as well.

Yeah, the SELP1650 is pretty "meh" - but it is AMAZINGLY compact and it is at least *usable*. Its performance/price and performance/size ratios are so good that unless you already own one, you really should buy it with a kit.

It allows you to have a very nice camera in situations where others might only have a cell phone. It is MUCH cheaper when purchased as a kit than standalone ($150 vs $300-350) - purchasing it standalone kills much of its performance/price advantage.

Same with the SEL55210 - although I'm not sure if this is offered in a two-lens kit for the A6300 like it was for the A6000. Just like the SELP1650, it's half the price or less when purchased with the kit.

My son used his a6000 and kit lens on a trip to Cambodia. He shot a panoramic image of the temples at Angkor Wat that I stitched together to print a 20x30 poster. It looked gorgeous. I really couldn't find any fault with it, and I was looking hard. The lens does not let you focus manually, and that can be frustrating.

Actually, I'm able to manual focus with the 16-50 kit lens on my A6300 by keeping the AF/MF-AEL switch on the AF/MF position and pressing the associated button. Maybe that's a feature not available in the A6000.

@ N135FDC, you might be thinking about the dslr a-mount 16-105mm lens, the 18-105 is e-mount. I've read a number of reviews and have not read that it's not compatible, in fact, a reviewer at b&h or amazon stated it was the perfect lens for the a6300.

Not AF unless you get the new Sigma adapter to e-mount...that might work.Getting back to the kit PZ16-50 for a moments. Many consider it to be the worst kit lens of them all, when it comes to optical quality. I've stopped using mine and gone back to the older 18-55 kit zoom lens.

My experience is the reverse. to captura's. My 18-55 is rarely used. I know there is sample variation and the 16-50 is a very complex lens so that is an issue. As for being the worst kit lens of them, well it hasnt been for me (Canon wins that race with the kit lens on the 20D) But, perhaps, if I were considering the lens (or any lens) I would do a lens search on some of the major photo-hosting sites, e.g. https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=E%20PZ%2016-50 or https://500px.com/search?q=E+PZ+16-50mm&submit=Submit&type=photos Not that that search will show all the photos taken with that lens, for example, none of my 16-50mm shots on 500px show up due to EXIF being lost in the editing processes.

Further to capture's saying that "Many consider it to be the worst kit lens of them all, when it comes to optical quality." I would counter that by pointing to this review which, in effect, says the opposite:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-pz-oss-selp1650/review/CONCLUSION: “The Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is a compact and inexpensive kit zoom lens that produces decent results, although it suffers from heavy barrel distortion at wide angles and produces images that are only super-sharp at the center. That said, it does better than most kit lenses, to the point that you may not feel the need to immediately rip it off and replace it with something better. It's a very serviceable shooter. The big selling points here are its compactness as well as the powerzoom and image stabilization features, both of which come in handy for video shooting.”

N135F2DC: The "Fully Compatible" checkmarks on that page are WORTHLESS. It seems like Sony just decided to randomly put them on some lenses.

I mean, seriously, you're saying that the lack of the blue checkmark for the 18-105G is a problem when *the kit lens sold with the camera* also lacks that blue checkmark?

Any lens that had a firmware update deployed back in the time when Sony first deployed OSPDAF does not get the blue checkmark, but the "incompatibility" notes effectively only say - upgrade to firmware 02 if your lens has old firmware.

@captura: You're right, I had overlooked the fact that the Sigma 17-50mm lens is A-mount whereas the A63000 is E-mount. I also just found out that the Sony version of the Sigma lens lacks optical stabilization, which is very unfortunate given that the A6300 body also lacks it. All in all, the Sigma lens is a pretty bad option for the A6300.

captura, you're missing the entire APS-C Sigma line. ALL of which is available in EF mount. Everything in their new line is compatible through the adapter with all the AF features of the A6300. 18-35 f1.8, 17-70 f2.8-f4.0, 18-300 f3.5-6.3, and the newly announced 50-100 f1.8

@captura: I could not find any evidence that the Made in Japan 18-55mm is optically any different from the Made in Thailand version—they use the same glass, just assembled in different places. Again I think it is sample variation at play.

But NSingh's question was about the kit lens and I think the 16-50mm and 18-55mm are not so different that it makes sense to forego the bundle deal.

The 28-70 is à full frame lens and its focal range has nothing to do with apsc. Imagine ressources has also pointed sharpness problems with the 16-50.... Unfortunately Sony 's problem is always the same : Having good lenses at à good price.

For the past few weeks we've been running a series of polls to find out what you - our readers - think of the major product releases of 2016. It's time to announce the winners of the first round of voting! Read more

Man’s best friend isn’t necessarily the most cooperative portrait subject. After spending some time photographing dogs (and a few cats) awaiting adoption at a local shelter, we’ve learned some lessons and have a number of tips for better pet portraits. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.